India Killed 8,000,000 Girls

the last two posts here are kinda.. uh... seriously?

BFC: i assume you'll be one of the first in line to be sterilized.

troon: you're in favor of telling people how many children they're allowed to have? for real? wouldn't it be smarter to give benefits to families who have less (or no) children as opposed to enforcing a rule that says you CAN'T have more than so many children?

I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason. This kids thing is a part of that.

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:36 PM, delet... said:

I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason

*inserts IDM gag*

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:19 PM, troon said:

what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated

 

 

 

also: no family should be able to have more then two children, one to replace each of the parents. seems logical enough right? what the fuck is going on

with these people who think it's ok to have all these fucking children, like it's nothing at all? ffffuuuuuuccckkkkkk! killing children is not the answer.

.

.

.

I don't think limiting the amount of children people can have will necessarily end the killing of children. The result of a policy like that may be that more children are aborted/killed.

The answer is always education and birth control.

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:19 PM, troon said:

what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated

 

 

 

also: no family should be able to have more then two children, one to replace each of the parents. seems logical enough right? what the fuck is going on

with these people who think it's ok to have all these fucking children, like it's nothing at all? ffffuuuuuuccckkkkkk! killing children is not the answer.

.

.

.

it is complicated,

you don't just go "full birth control" into areas where people's lives depend on human workforce, ie male children..it didn't work well even in china

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:37 PM, BCM said:

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:36 PM, delet... said:

I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason

 

*inserts IDM gag*

the media's calling it the "aborted Live 8.....(million)"

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:37 PM, BCM said:

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:36 PM, delet... said:

I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason

 

*inserts IDM gag*

hah .. oh nos

  On 5/23/2011 at 10:04 PM, dr lopez said:

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:37 PM, BCM said:

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:36 PM, delet... said:

I'm in favour of laws based on logic and reason

 

*inserts IDM gag*

the media's calling it the "aborted Live 8.....(million)"

or adjustin the beaver count. (something for the entertainment media)

Now if only India had aborted Troon.

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:46 PM, jefferoo said:

 

 

The answer is always education and birth control.

specifically, educating women. Women with better education want less kids.

Meh, there are people everywhere who just shouldn't be having kids and are just plain stupid for having them.

For example, a 20 year old male acquaintance of mine just got fired, has a 2 year old, another kid on the way, a pretty decent criminal record, no mode of transportation, and a fucking stupid head on his shoulders. Fuckhead.

education? i would think that goes without saying and should be the utmost priority

the first step towards laws against excessive births might be to introduce the issue of overpopulation more vigorously

into the media and popular culture . of course a law could not be implemented over night, the concept would have to be slowly introduced

.

.

we've crossed the event horizon in terms of the earths population. it's all black holes from here...

what?

I think you should have to pass some sort of test to have children if there has to be some sort of population control. if you are completely ignorant or have no way of financially supporting your old child/children then you can not reproduce at that time.

There are weird situations like in Russia now where people have more abortions than babies, nobody immigrates, everybody gets an education and takes it out of the country and the population dives. I suppose the point is that if you try to reduce a population without just culling a uniform percentage it is a mess for the country. I think Japan has leveled out its population but a low birth rate and long life expectancy means they have a load of pensioners to support with a small workforce.

  On 5/24/2011 at 10:41 AM, jules said:

I think you should have to pass some sort of test to have children if there has to be some sort of population control. if you are completely ignorant or have no way of financially supporting your old child/children then you can not reproduce at that time.

chipped vas deferens valve linked to bank account?

  On 5/24/2011 at 1:07 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:46 PM, jefferoo said:

 

 

The answer is always education and birth control.

 

specifically, educating women. Women with better education want less kids.

It is sexist (to to mention ignorant) to assume that it is mostly the woman's fault.

Men make up 50% of the equation. Many times men don't want to wear condoms. Also, like it or not, in many countries, men don't want the women to have educations. And guess what, those men still have unprotected sex.

Also, think about how people, male or female, let religion dictate whether or not the use birth control. Think about it. The Vatican isn't keen on it. Not a lot of women in there, especially calling the shots.

  On 5/24/2011 at 2:37 AM, troon said:

 

the first step towards laws against excessive births might be to introduce the issue of overpopulation more vigorously

into the media and popular culture . of course a law could not be implemented over night, the concept would have to be slowly introduced

.

.

The problem with child limit laws is that (if you are trying to avoid abortions) people still, and will always have sex. Protected or not. With that in mind, people will get pregnant. If there is a 2 child limit law and you have a woman with 2 children who gets pregnant again, guess what... abortion. I don't think child limit laws are the answer.

what a fucking trainwreck of a thread!

there are multiple problems here. the first problem is that of unwanted babies, which mankind has been struggling to deal with since the beginning. the romans used to carry the unwanted newborn up a mountain, leave it under a tree to die of exposure or be eaten. now that we have the technology to storm the uterus, the debate is more complicated. i'm not sure there is a good answer, here. i'm not a terribly sentimental dude and i think the romans had it right

the second problem is a lot more complicated. in third-world countries, or second-world countries with less scruples* children are cheap labor, and so they make a lot of them.

the third problem is outdated gender identities. i don't know much about indian society, but i gather each gender has very distinct roles. it seems to have wound up that males are a lot more economically valuable than females. most parents surely wouldn't kill ANY of their kids..... but there are always a few sociopaths.

*but the fuck do i know, really. if i had a choice between popping out 14 kids and starving, i'd probably opt for the kids.

laws this, laws that - china has that whole thing going - what happens when you accidentally have a third? Unplanned pregnancies can happen even with people using birth control. What if someone has triplets?

Not to be all scientific or anything either, but the replacement rate for developed countries is 2.1 births per woman, and is higher for developing countries. Wikipedia says 2.5 to 3.3 percent. The global replacement rate they say is about 2.33 births women, where population growth would trend to zero. You have to take into account mortality rates you see.

The world population is growing, but it is growing at a declining rate (due to all the edumacation them womens be getting). In the meantime, we're trying to avoid placing laws restricting people's reproductive rights.

Just to note in a macabre sort of way, that 8,000,000 is less than 1% of India's population - and this is over a decade. If they keep going at this rate though, in the end, you won't have to worry about it troon - natural selection will take care of them. In the meantime, Indian women will have their pick of husbands - that's what happens when you have a skewed sex ratio - ask the Chinese. To clarify for all the inevitable howling - I'm not for forced abortions (or sterilization), I just also happen to believe that whilst government is certainly necessary - government has no business telling me how and when I can fuck, and how many kids I and my partner can have.

  On 5/24/2011 at 11:39 AM, chenGOD said:

laws this, laws that - china has that whole thing going - what happens when you accidentally have a third? Unplanned pregnancies can happen even with people using birth control. What if someone has triplets?

 

Not to be all scientific or anything either, but the replacement rate for developed countries is 2.1 births per woman, and is higher for developing countries. Wikipedia says 2.5 to 3.3 percent. The global replacement rate they say is about 2.33 births women, where population growth would trend to zero. You have to take into account mortality rates you see.

 

The world population is growing, but it is growing at a declining rate (due to all the edumacation them womens be getting). In the meantime, we're trying to avoid placing laws restricting people's reproductive rights.

 

 

Just to note in a macabre sort of way, that 8,000,000 is less than 1% of India's population - and this is over a decade. If they keep going at this rate though, in the end, you won't have to worry about it troon - natural selection will take care of them. In the meantime, Indian women will have their pick of husbands - that's what happens when you have a skewed sex ratio - ask the Chinese. To clarify for all the inevitable howling - I'm not for forced abortions (or sterilization), I just also happen to believe that whilst government is certainly necessary - government has no business telling me how and when I can fuck, and how many kids I and my partner can have.

well said.

send them all into space

I agree with troon on the media thing. People will do a lot for you if you make them feel that they are doing something selfless for the sake of the whole, or at least because everybody else is doing it. Unfortunately media is a wing of Industry, whose single minded goal is never ending growth. So good luck getting the media on board in any meaningful way. For the time being at least.

And as chen said, there has been a steady contraction in birth rates globally. What we are debating about, kind of like with putting carbon in the atmosphere is how much is a safe level to end up with. An amount that won't effect us too severely.

  On 5/24/2011 at 11:39 AM, chenGOD said:

Just to note in a macabre sort of way, that 8,000,000 is less than 1% of India's population - and this is over a decade. If they keep going at this rate though, in the end, you won't have to worry about it troon - natural selection will take care of them. In the meantime, Indian women will have their pick of husbands - that's what happens when you have a skewed sex ratio - ask the Chinese. To clarify for all the inevitable howling - I'm not for forced abortions (or sterilization), I just also happen to believe that whilst government is certainly necessary - government has no business telling me how and when I can fuck, and how many kids I and my partner can have.

Never thought of that. I guess will let India do it's thing then, huh?

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:19 PM, troon said:

what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated

 

are you referring to hot dogging?

  On 5/24/2011 at 3:02 PM, delet... said:

How much is a safe level to end up with. An amount that won't effect us too severely.

Replacement rate of 2.33 globally :)

  On 5/24/2011 at 6:22 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 5/23/2011 at 9:19 PM, troon said:

what the wold needs is more people who can fuck without making babies all the time. it's not that complicated

 

 

are you referring to hot dogging?

  On 5/24/2011 at 6:31 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 5/24/2011 at 3:02 PM, delet... said:

How much is a safe level to end up with. An amount that won't effect us too severely.

 

Replacement rate of 2.33 globally :)

This is getting us back to the argument where you believe that we have to ever increase in population for fear that there won't be enough young people around to keep the economy stable. Hence your smiley i spose, you cheeky sot. Because you know that i meant an even if perhaps slightly negative population growth, as your model only delays the inevitable crunch.